California cities appear likely to retain the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, over the objections of medical pot advocates who argue such restrictions undermine the state law allowing the use of cannabis for medical reasons.

During a hearing Tuesday in San Francisco, the California Supreme Court appeared inclined to allow cities to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in a case that has sweeping ramifications for local governments across the state and in the Bay Area, where dozens of cities have enacted dispensary bans.

The dispensaries argue local governments cannot ban what California law allows, but the Supreme Court appeared unready to embrace that position.

Most of the justices were openly skeptical of the arguments of a dispensary that challenged Riverside's right to ban medical pot providers. The justices appeared particularly troubled that the 1996 voter-approved law allowing medical marijuana use, and later legislative revisions, did not expressly bar local governments from banning dispensaries.

The state law "says nothing about immunity from local (regulations) or prohibitions," observed Justice Goodwin Liu.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye indicated that the medical marijuana law does not trump local governments' right to control land uses through zoning laws and other regulations.

"The core of this case to me is really land-use regulation," she told David Nick, the lawyer for the Riverside dispensary.

Advertisement

The case involves the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, which more than two years ago sued to block Riverside's dispensary ban. The Supreme Court agreed to review a 2011 appeals court ruling that upheld the city's ban.

Riverside, backed by groups such as the League of California Cities, argues that local governments have strong rights to regulate land uses, particularly an unusual use such as a medical marijuana dispensary. At least 180 California cities have some form of ban, including about three dozen in Northern California, most recently the East Bay cities of Antioch and Pittsburg.

But medical marijuana advocates argue that the bans conflict with the intent of the state law, which was to allow widespread access to medical cannabis for patients with prescriptions, such as those suffering from cancer or AIDS.

Several justices expressed concern that the city bans might undercut that intent. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, in particular, pressed Riverside's lawyer on that issue.

"If all counties throughout the state ban it ... the purpose (of the state law) is thwarted," she said at one point.

Overall, however, the justices' questioning suggested they are in the cities' corner.